top 97 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 132 points 1 year ago (8 children)

No fucking shit, everyone knows this, even the democrats know this, most of them are just bought and paid for

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I remember having mad respect for Biden for announcing his intention before 2020 of being a one term president.

    It sickens me how much the Democrats dropped the ball.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Biden doesn't get enough hate. If he had allowed real primaries, the Democratic candidate would have won easily. Trump won again because right wing Democrats fight harder against progressive Democrats than they do against Republicans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    My best "famous people" story is that I once had a private dinner with Joe Biden and his entire family, Jill and Beau and Hunter and their kids when they were small.

    Now, instead of a great story, I had dinner with one of the worst presidents of our time.

    Dammit Joe. You fucked up our country, and my story.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Our centre-left party is Labour

    I'll spot you that Corbyn was centre-left back in 2015. The current Starmer government is indistinguishable from the Tories (in no small part because a bunch of the New Labour Starmerites are literally just Tory transplants) who occasionally stake out positions to the right of Farage's fascist Reform platform.

    But hey, at least you've got "Your Party" now. As soon as they stop suing each other, anyway.

    never pandering to them, but put big ideas on the table.

    Part of the problem with modern politics is that its so tied up in the News/Social Media cycle that running on "the same old idea that was as good then as it is now" is seen as bad politics. You can't just come out and day "We should hire more doctors for the NHS and pay their lowest level staff better wages" or "We need strong labor unions in the country again in order to claw back surplus value from the employer class" because that's old boring socialist slop. You can't even have a Mamdani-esque "We're going to have government run grocery stores that trade basic staples at cost of production to fight inflation" without being heckled as a radical marxist who flunked economics.

    None of that gets the national media jazzed up. The only way to get people (in national media) excited is to talk about the latest Tech-Thingy and insist New Tech is going to be the panacea for all your problems. And then, every time a New Tech thing comes out, you pivot to that and insist its going to bring about the cost cutting (ie, lower wages and higher capital costs) reform everyone secretly desires.

    That's the only thing that qualifies as a "Big Idea" in the eyes of national media reporters. So that's the tail our political dogs are told to chase. Forever. Nevermind that it never seems to fucking work, save to enrich a few special interests in the tech industry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think what’s interesting about him is that he is polling well - he could win the election, even with his big ideas.

    He's captured a moment within the city when every single other person running sucks enormous amounts of ass. I suspect he'd get flattened by a '00s era Bloomberg or a '90s era Giuliani. But the political scene in NYC has been hollowed out. Running for office is a thankless task. Governing is an even more thankless task. Getting a job selling bitcoins to public pensions and high frequency trading tickets to the next Taylor Swift concert via some weird wholesaler app is significantly more lucrative.

    Guys like Adams, Sliwa, Cuomo, and Mamdani are what's left after you've stripped state and local politics of anything except the cheapest form of bribery and the most naive form of ideological optimism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago

    I don't view Democrat leadership as moderate at all. "Centrist", just means Republican policies that boil the frog.

  • source
  • [–] 77 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Bill Clinton tried triangulation (read: being more right wing) and the republicans tried to impeach him. Obama was right of Reagan and the republicans…tried to impeach him. If the GOP is going to fuck with democrats no matter what, let’s just elect some truly revolutionary people. I mean people who make Bernie Sanders look like Mitt Romney. People who make Cornel West look like Paul Ryan. We should be running people who start at “if your net worth is over $100 million you get to line up against the wall” and need to be negotiated down from there.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Exactly. The next president should be very progressive - free health care for all, expand public services, get the 800 billionaires, millionaires and corporations to start paying taxes, increase teachers salary and minimum wage, make associate degrees free, no more bailing out industries/companies, get rid of monopolies, make paid pto mandatory of minimal 3 weeks. Call it project 2029 and create the manual for it now so that it’s actualized on day 1. I can dream can’t I? Maybe in 40 years this will be possible….

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    I voted for Obama in 2008 for exactly this reason, that was his platform. Then I watched from my hospital bed in 2010 (partial colonectomy due to diverticulitis) while they (the House and Senate) voted it down. I don't know if he/they was/were corrupted by pharma money after the fact, or if he/they ever intended to follow through to begin with.

    In the book Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber, he quotes Obama where he makes the excuse that having Medicare for All would leave 3 million insurance workers out of a job. That would be like stifling the proliferation of electric lighting because of the impact it would have on the whaling industry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The public option was killed, specifically, by Joe Lieberman. Not the Democratic party as a whole, or Obama.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago*

    The dems could have taken him off all committee assignments and had the AG go after he and his family's financial misdeeds unless he played ball. They could have included it in budget reconciliation. They could have simply changed the rules to allow them to break filibuster with 50+vp. They chose to let Lieberman stop them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The public option was there to be bargained away. They never intended to enact it. Joe Lieberman had to play the part of the opposition since the republicans are too racist to ever bargain with a black president.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Lieberman was reviled by the party after that. Trying to act like he was some kind of avatar of the Democrats is revisionist history. The party literally primaried him out and he had to run as an independent. He spent the rest of his life whining about how mean Democrats were to him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Amen! I want Democrats to do all the things that Republicans accuse them of doing. I want them to do this because being reasonable is not winning brownie points with these people. The next president should tell America to get ready for a new national flag; we're adding 3 more stars for Puerto Rico, Guam, and Washington DC!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That’s why it isn’t working.

    We don’t want moderates. Moderates aren’t the ones that will get Civil Rights, campaign reform, rein in monopolies, get rid of Citizens United, health care for all, etc. Moderates just half-ass “solutions” that keep stuffing more money in the already wealthy’s pockets while ineffectively trying to get bakeries to make wedding cakes for gay couples. We need actual liberals and progressives, not Republican-lite.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Fuck, so many signs, so many failures for so many years...

    Say what you want for Republicans but they plan and play long term and they play it well. So many small losses, but every hundred losses, another quiet, hidden step forward to eroding democracy... Fox news, the Republican state TV channel, winning a lawsuit enabling them to call themselves a news organization while lying, hell, since Reagan...

    The US has been sliding in this direction for 4-5 decades now, look where you've gotten yourself, it's embarrassing...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I think this is simplifying and twisting narratives. Republicans didn't plan for Trump, but the evangelicals and extremists rolled with it (just like progressives and antifa would've rolled with someone like Bernie). Besides an authoritarian take over of elections, the republicans don't seem to be putting anyone electable up on a podium lately.

    I doubt any of us are privy to what the Democrats plan and play long term, if anything they've been more effective at controlling their party if we're looking at them through the lens of being moderates. If you think they're "failing".... it's in the eyes of a citizen and not what their donor's interests are which is the priority of the party.

    I am interested to learn about how the rest of the world is handling the "news" issue though, I see a lot of media coming from other countries (like UK and Australia) which follow the same format of fox so figured we were all fucked when it comes to actually vetting what can be labeled as a news source.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 50 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    They aren’t moderate they are where the far right was in 2000

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Tell that to older gay people

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I grew up in a gay family so I know all about this subject. I can argue that the democrats continuously moved farther right while using a few social justice issues as a smokescreen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    This is true, but that does not mean that they haven't made life materially better for LGBTQ+ people, even if it was a cynical calculation for many of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It’s starting to look like those rights and the rights of women are just going to be taken away and then surprise the parties combine into one faction of facism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Look at the money both parties are receiving from aipac. 95 democrats voted to give Charlie Kirk a holiday. Two wings of the same bird.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 99 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    US Democrats are very conservative under their thin coat of identity politics. They would be considered way to the right of most European conservative parties.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    I don’t think this is actually true. Perhaps on some very specific issues but as a whole I’d say no. They are certainly to the right of left wing parties but many conservatives in Europe have also shifted right in recent years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I disagree look at actual laws and policies, the rural and less educated areas might be loud but they don't hold any power. Stares at Roe v Wade in the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    Democrats generally support roe v wade so this is a poor example.

    The difference is in the US the rural and uneducated people do hold the power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Yeah they "supported" it so much it was overturned great clown logic.

    That also was my point about the dumb dumbs having actual power in the US, so swing and two misses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I never said they were competent. But I don’t think there’s much question that they genuinely support abortion rights. If you believe otherwise, the ruling of a court with a supermajority controlled by the opposing party is very poor evidence. The Democratic appointees all voted to preserve it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    It's worse than that, in my opinion. The Dems feign incompetence to keep the game of distraction going. It's like WWE to keep us all blaming our neighbors while they take away more of our rights a little at a time. They let Rowe v. Wade get overturned on purpose so they have something to harp about in the future.

    Obama suspended habeus corpus which goes back to the frigging Magna Carta: all they need to do is call you a terrorist or a traitor and they can just disappear your ass. Rhetorical side note: how can Julian Assange have committed treason if he wasn't an American to begin with?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Maybe in a few specific issues this happens but I think it’s more that dems face a lot of pressure from powerful people and they tend to buckle.

    I don’t see any evidence of that with roe vs wade. They just didn’t think it would be overturned.

    Are you talking about Guantanamo Bay with the Habeus Corpus stuff?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Correct. Most people who say this are focused on healthcare and other social safety net issues. When you look at LGBTQ+ rights, or racial discrimination, or even abortion, Democrats are further to the left of lots of European parties. It can be a slog to get a European to admit they even have racial issues at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Name a country in Europe where abortion, being gay are illegal or racial discrimination is so bad they have to overcorrect it with laws?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Ah ya got me. Now name a country in the European Union (which is what I meant)or that is only part of Europe and no other continent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So obviously I can't speak for all European countries, but I find it hard to see in what way the Dems would not be at least center-right here

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago*

    yeah but center right isn't more right wing than European conservatives. Parties like AfD, PVV, RN, Vlaams Belang are more to the right of European conservatives. Those are straight up fascists. Dems would still be considered liberals in Europe and I mean the old classic liberalism not the weird definition Americans use who think liberalism is a left leaning ideology like progressivism. And liberals are mostly center right to right wing in Europe.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I've seen leftist Americans say that Bernie Sanders would be considered a right wing conservative in Europe. These people have no idea what the political landscape actually looks like in Europe. Some still believe Europe is a soc-dem Valhalla, because we have healthcare here. But many centrist parties have shifted right in Europe even in the Nordics. For example the center left Danish Social Democrats have implemented hardline asylum policies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    They're just trolling. Bernie is at least left of center. He is also the most left of any national politicians here. Democratic party leadership are roughly around where the Tories are in the UK.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Democrats now are where Republicans were in the 80s

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    This is correct. They've "moderated" their views so many times over the years that they are only distinguishable from Reagan Republicans because of their stance on abortion.

    And people are even calling for Dems to be more "pro-life" in order to further appeal to "moderates." It's absurd.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago

    There's no such thing as meeting Nazis in the middle. That's called "becoming a Nazi".

  • source
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Moderates? Maybe 30 years ago. As they shift the Overton window they stay in lockstep with Republicans as they shift to the right, filling the void left by Republicans. Policy wise they sit somewhere between GW Bush and first term Trump

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    The whole moderate thing was an attempt to appeal to Republican voters. They live in a personality cult echo chamber now, it would serve no purpose except catering to ghost. The fact that they are still thinking within a system that has been fundamentally corrupted is why they are doomed to failure.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    There are only two parties in that stupid place, what the hell would they think being diet right would do?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Conventional wisdom among dems since the 90s has been triangulation; all voters vote for the candidate closest to their ideology, so if you can get the republican to move as far right as possible, say Hitler, then triangulate your positions to be one iota left of the republican, say 99% Hitler, then everyone left of 99.5% Hitler has to vote for you.

    In practice, this only wins elections if the republican is more incompetent than Donald Trump. But democrats who believe this get tons of money from donors, and its apoealimg to the sort of class position who can afford to become congressional staffers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    And that is why the us is no longer a democracy, if someone is right wing leaning they are going to vote for the republicans, but if they are not then they are forced to vote for the "not as bad" party. Issue to me is, every time someone has to swallow their convictions and vote for the lesser evil they get a a bit more disgruntled. After so many years of being worn down, combined with low wages and higher costs of living people start to check out or vote for the worst out of spite.

    Big tent politics always seem to fail, the parties that do this tend to lose a coherent platform. Issue with the states is that unlike other nations there is only the two parties, and no realistic way to have another. So now the states had evil and evil lite teams instead of like anywhere else where the dems would have been pushed out by a actual left.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [+] 39 points 1 year ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Well, democracts mostly act like the other side of the coin of republican. And it's not hard to understand why when you see PACs and millionaires funding both.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    Democrats and Republicans are two halves of the one party state in America

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    Democrats Are Already “Moderate.”

    I'd say quite a few of them are conservative bordering on reactionary. You just can't see it for all the MSNBC talking heads that insist Henry Cuellar is the far left of the political spectrum and anyone beyond that is a Tankie posting from a North Korean IP address.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    The vast majority of Democrats are center-right. That's not moderate.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Get disgruntled voters to vote again, drive up turnout, maybe the Dems will win.

    Try to convert brainwashed fascists to fasc-lite: absolute recipe for continued failure.

    The DNC wants the Dems to be the Washington Generals.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Every potential convert you were ever going to turn happened election day 2020.

  • source
  • The "leadership" of the Democrat party sits to the right of several disparate further left factions. Because they don't embrace any specific leftward direction, they are juggling half baked compromises instead of leading anywhere. Bold policies that would be approved of by one further left group are opposed by others, so they can't go left without losing support somewhere. Staying where they are makes them moderately disagreeable for every one of the factions that can support and vote for them, so they are unpopular across the board. They are all but trapped not far enough to the right to contend for Republican votes, and not far enough left to propose anything truly different.

    I see the candidacy of further left individuals (mostly at the local level for now, but this will move fast if the "leadership" collapses further) as the first serious mechanism to break this stalemate. Popular figures from city or state government aim for national positions frequently, so expect anyone standing out with how well they run things at the local level to make that pivot.

    A similar thing is at play on the right. Christian fundamentalists, war hawk neoconservatives, the alt right, the would-be fascists, select business interests, nationalists, libertarians, and others are constantly battling over policy. At this moment about 70% of them are trying to ride Trump's popularity and apparent effectiveness at making changes to get whatever is most important to them done before it's too late. If the Republicans gain seats in 2026, that surface level unity will become even more significant, but once Trump is out of the picture, infighting is all but certain to resume on the right, and we'll see weaker, "keep everyone happy" politicians take center stage again.

    If both those processes play out with the right timing, we may get a true leftist running against a Jeb tier Republican in 2028 or 2032.

  • source
  • [+] -14 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Let's be honest. The majority of the U.S. is not progressive. If you pit a far left candidate against are far right on the national stage then right will win every time.

    Vote as far as you can in your local and state elections because your vote has a much larger impact in those races. When it comes to the Federal races, please just vote for who has a solid chance even if it's a moderate because let's be honest... Anything is better than what we have now.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago

    I actually think this is the opposite of the situation. You’re probably right that the majority of the US would not identify as progressive, but I’m confident the majority of the US would vote for progressive candidates if we had elections that weren’t predetermined by gerrymandering. If our elections were also free from corporate interests, the US would be a fully progressive democratic socialist country, and I’m sure most people would be happy with what that means for them and their families.

    The US is obsessed with labels. If a candidate runs on practical progressive policies without calling them progressive, they can often do really well. It’s not a fluke that right wingers have been showing up in support of Bernie and AOC.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Post-election polls say Bernie would've won if he was the candidate against Trump in 2016. America would definitely vote for a progressive. I mean, hell, Obama ran as a progressive and destroyed the Republican candidate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    If the DNC wants to win, they know how. They've won before by talking about social polices, rebuilding American infrastructure, talking about removing debt from the citizens, improving healthcare, abortion rights...

    They copied the Republican playbook from 2016 for 2024, while saying The economy is doing good, don't complain! like Trump is doing now with his Tariff bullshit. It's actually your fault you can't pay rent and eat food at the same time, pleb!

    Remember when we were going to get monthly $1000 checks to help with COVID? Cancel student debt for all Americans? Codify Roe v. Wade? Arrest Trump?

    But we're the bad guys for having the memory of Democrat voters instead of Republican shitheads.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    To be honest I don't think they needed to do all that to beat Trump. They just needed to run another man. Hilary, Biden, and Harris went up against Trump and one of them won. What's the difference?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    People want to vote for somebody popular, call them what you will. Somebody that's fighting for them.

    Absolutely nobody likes the Democrats, the last presidential elections have shit shows with the most unpopular possible candidates running is the status quo, there are no challenges for house leadership, or Senate leadership, no criticism in the party.

    Maybe you should question those people telling you that that is what is electable and not those popular things like not getting ass fucked by the rich without your consent.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Ive never had the option to vote for a moderate from a major party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›